Microsoft reverted to its old anti-competitive behavior, and is now trying to use its market dominance to exert Apple-style control over the distribution of apps and games. At least, that’s the argument made by Epic Games co-founder Tim Sweeney in a blistering editorial published in the Guardian.

His quarrel is with Microsoft’s Universal Web Platform (UWP) initiative, which he describes as a “fiasco” and “the most aggressive move Microsoft has ever made”.

Tim Sweeney is really worried about UWP. But you shouldn’t be. Read on to find out why.

Tim argues that this is ultimately anti-competitive, as it prevents developers from selling directly to consumers, as has traditionally been the case. It also locks out third-party app stores, like Steam, Good Old Games (GOG), and Unity. It essentially gives Microsoft a monopoly on the distribution of Windows software, much like Apple has on the iPhone.

Locked Features

Another one of the concerns raised by Sweeney was Microsoft will eventually use their control over UWP as a weapon to cripple non-UWP software. This concern is understandable. The corporate history of Microsoft is filled with them doing similar things, and getting chastised by the government (or their users) as a result.

It’s perhaps because of this lawsuit that we have as much choice of browsers as we have today.

For a more contemporary example of Microsoft using its dominance to hinder third-parties, you need only look at Windows RTWindows RT - What You Can & Can't DoWindows RT - What You Can & Can't DoWindows RT edition was discreetly launched about a month and a half ago with the flagship Microsoft Surface RT tablet device. Though visually indistinguishable from Windows 8, there are some key differences as to what...Read More. This was Microsoft’s ill-fated attempt to release a locked-down, ARM-compatible version of Windows, which would compete with the iPad.

Microsoft didn’t allow browsers other than Internet Explorer to access a software process called Just In Time (JIT) compilation. This essentially made it impossible for them to handle JavaScript, which is a crucial component of most websites. It essentially made Internet Explorer the only viable web browser for Windows RT.

Sweeney worries that as Microsoft continues to develop UWP, it will include features (or performance enhancements) that aren’t available to non-UWP apps, thereby disadvantaging them.

Ironically, the few UWP games available to buy are themselves crippled, by virtue of them being UWP games. Take Quantum Break, for example, which will be released shortly as a Windows App Store exclusive.

But there’s also the fact that these distribution systems, especially Steam, are inherently better than anything Microsoft could offer.

Take Steam. Valve’s wildly popular games distribution service has been around for well over a decade now. They essentially have a captive audience of customers, who have spent years and thousands of dollars building collections of games, which cannot be ported to rival services. I’m hardly a gamer myself, and I own well over 120 Steam games. This means I’m almost certainly never going to move elsewhere.

Steam’s hard product, while shaky at first, is amazing, too. They’ve perfected every aspect of the gaming experience, from delivery, to non-intrusive DRM, to customer service. They’ve included value-added extras, like trading cards and achievements. They’ve embraced the modding community with open arms, and made it easier for end-users to download third-party code.

It makes sense that Microsoft feels threatened by Steam. They’ve got a mature, solid product, which people love, and it earns them a lot of money. It’s allowed Valve to become a hyper-profitable games company, despite not releasing all that many games.

You could be forgiven for speculating that Microsoft would use their muscle to disadvantage Steam, and other third-party distribution networks, in favor of their own offerings.

But it is just that. Speculation.

Nothing to Fear

I can understand Tim’s logic. UWP, by design, essentially gives Microsoft a monopoly on distribution.

I can also understand why Microsoft would want to exert more control over their app ecosystem. Not only will it earn them more money, but it also gives Microsoft leverage to raise the quality of Windows’ apps, and to improve security.

But despite that, I’m not convinced by Tim Sweeney’s argument. At times, it felt a bit like Netflix worrying about Betamax taking all their business. Sweeney is worrying about something that has failed to happen.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment

Name *

Email *

Brian McMahon

March 18, 2016 at 10:25 pm

This is one of the best and most accurate articles about UWP that I've read. The fear and loathing of UWP is all based on speculation that an "evil Microsoft" will end support for Win32 and DirectX development APIs (except within UWP). If Microsoft actually attempted to carry out such a plan, they would both destroy their stock value and bring down upon their lofty heads the wrath of just about every government on planet Earth. End of support for Win32 without a non-UWP replacement is simply not something that Microsoft could pull off. It is literally in the fabric of all Windows compatible applications used everywhere around the world. Attempting to corner this kind of technology into UWP is just never going to happen.

Personally, I'm all in favor of Microsoft going the way of tightening its software distribution policies. This way maybe Linux will finally receive the attention it deserves and we'll be seeing less distros and more developers working together to offer an all-encopassing product that third-party companies will be willing to invest into. I use Linux only sporadically and I love the look, feel and perfomarnces of Windows 10, but Microsoft asinine policies have been a thorn in everyone's side for decades. It's about time we see another shift in the OS market.

"For a more contemporary example of Microsoft using its dominance to hinder third-parties, you need only look at Windows RT. This was Microsoft’s ill-fated attempt to release a locked-down, ARM-compatible version of Windows, which would compete with the iPad."
- Windows RT and by extension the Surface RT was not Microsoft's attempt to use "its dominance to hinder third-parties", it was MicroSoft's attempt to release a tablet. MicroSoft is not by any measure dominant in the tablet market. You are ascribing ill intent where there was none. Attempting to enter a 'new' market isn't necessarily bad behavior nor is it evidence of Microsoft being the bad guy.

"Microsoft didn’t allow browsers other than Internet Explorer to access a software process called Just In Time (JIT) compilation. This essentially made it impossible for them to handle JavaScript, which is a crucial component of most websites. It essentially made Internet Explorer the only viable web browser for Windows RT."
- Once again you are trying to make Microsoft the bad guy. The reason there were no other viable browsers for Windows RT was the companies refused to make them. The only thing they would not have been able to do was have the browser on the desktop. They each have browsers in the app stores for other tablets, why is a browser in the app store for Windows RT suddenly a bad thing.

Matthew Hughes is a software developer and writer from Liverpool, England. He is seldom found without a cup of strong black coffee in his hand and absolutely adores his Macbook Pro and his camera. You can read his blog at http://www.matthewhughes.co.uk and follow him on twitter at @matthewhughes.